Re: want to see Bass trying to get out of an argument that he cant win?

[too fat for a ladder <alarminstall@xxxxxxx>]

On Sep 28, 12:08 am, Frank Olson
<use_the_email_li...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> too fat for a ladder wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 27, 12:45 pm, Frank Olson
> > <use_the_email_li...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> too fat for a ladder wrote:
>
> >>> On Sep 25, 10:58 pm, Roger W <alluc...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>> On Sep 25, 9:28 am, Jim Rojas <jro...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>> Robert L Bass wrote:
> >>>>>> "Jim Rojas" wrote:
> >>>>>>> You forgot to mention the deaths & class action lawsuits from the $600
> >>>>>>> medz...
> >>>>>> I'm not aware of any deaths from anti-nausea medications though I
> >>>>>> suppose it may have happened.
> >>>>>>> The FDA cover ups from tests they never got around to performing on
> >>>>>>> real patients, they claim that only the virtual patients suffered any
> >>>>>>> side affects of any real concern...
> >>>>>> I think the drug companies themselves have to perform the tests, or
> >>>>>> sponsor clinical trials.
> >>>>>>> The FDA then approving the same drug under a different name as another
> >>>>>>> miracle cure...
> >>>>>> I'm not big on conspiracy theories concerning the FDA though no doubt
> >>>>>> they "looked the other way" much more during the previous administration
> >>>>>> than they would dare under Obama's watch.  My father had to deal with
> >>>>>> the FDA for many years as a Vice-President at Bristol-Meyers.  He used
> >>>>>> to tell us all kinds of stories about the stuff they would do.
> >>>>> I was speaking abou the FDA as a whole. It seems drugs approved 5-10
> >>>>> years ago now have swarms of ambulance chasers plastering 10 second
> >>>>> commercials urging people to file claims again these drug companies. We
> >>>>> all know the heart of the problem is the FDA taking these clinical
> >>>>> trails at face value. They rush to get things approved, no matter who
> >>>>> gets killed along the way.
> >>>>> Jim Rojas- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>> Ambulance chasers are some of my best clients. :-)
> >>>> RW <
> >>> You sell jogging shoes now?
> >>> And where is your opinion on my 2 sites, Roger? Oh what sites? Glad
> >>> you asked.
> >>>http://www.onlinealarmquotes.com
> >>>http://www.alarmquotesonline.com
> >> One thing I should mention is that if you're going to be posting
> >> material verbatim sourced from other sites, you should first of all seek
> >> permission to do so (from the "site owners") and then cite the
> >> source(s).  Otherwise you leave yourself open to a complaint for
> >> copyright infringement.  I don't think that "fair use" would apply to
> >> your obviously commercial site.  If you're going to use "Wiki", perhaps
> >> a simple link to the page would be better.
>
> >> Otherwise, I applaud your efforts, Tom, and wish you every success with
> >> your new endeavour. <
>
> > There's no copyright infringement, Frank.
> > Wiki's material, when accurate (a rarity) is fair use.Wiki's material
> > comes from anyone and everyone that feels like posting, adding, and
> > editing.
>
> I'd suggest you have a quick read of this:
>
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use
>
> I do know of a fire service company that recently got nailed for
> copyright infringement, but they stole pages from competitors (not wiki). <

I understand what their policy says BUT the information on their sites
is added by registered users, and anything can be edited at anytime by
anyone. I could post the Brinks Sales Manual on Wiki and Wiki would
think it's their property. You could swipe content from my site and
post it on Wiki and Wiki would claim it as their content. Wiki can say
whatever they want but they do not have a legitimate claim to content
when that content is not provided by them.
The access control page that I grabbed is being used as a visual aid.
If you read the original page you'd think an alien authored it.
There's some good information on there but some of it is in left
field. I will take the good information as food for thought and build
on it.
At this stage I am deleting the nonsense from that page. It will be
replaced with accurate information, and it will be minus the use of
brand names.


I appreciate your feedback. Now other than the rights of ownership for
content what is your impression of the site? How useful would you, as
a consumer, find that site, and how would you, as a vendor find the
service?
Would you (assuming your company installs) pay $15.00 for a qualified
lead knowing as many as 5 other vendors are competing for the same
business? Can you see where closing even 1 out of 10 would make it
more than worth your while? $150.00 to land a new subscriber is far
less than the average cost to originate a new account.
This is an easy service to sell to vendors, and with ISC East weeks
away I will have more than ample dealers to solicit, so I am not
trolling here for accounts. What I am fishing for is blunt feedback
from the group of curmudgeons that have posted here for years.